Talk:Tabitha and Napoleon D'umo/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Mephiston999 (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Lead
 * The lead needs expansion, and needs to summarise the whole article and not just parts of it.
 * No need to have so many references in a row, please remove some and leave one or two.
 * Why is this bad? I put that many references on purpose because I didn't want there to be any dispute about Nappytabs creating this form of dance. I don't think there's any wikipolicy that places a cap on citations so I removed two and left the rest.
 * Why is this bad? I put that many references on purpose because I didn't want there to be any dispute about Nappytabs creating this form of dance. I don't think there's any wikipolicy that places a cap on citations so I removed two and left the rest.

Early life
 * she met her husband Napoleon ..... she met her future husband Napoleon

Miscellaneous
 * References' dates, such as retrieved must be consistent. Example: 2009-07-03 and July 14, 2008
 * Punctuation problem throughout the whole article, many commas are missing.
 * Punctuation problem throughout the whole article, many commas are missing.

More comments on their way.Mephiston999 (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's now March 19th. Is there anything else? //Gbern3 (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Another review
OK, since the previous reviewer hasn't returned to the article and appears to be inactive, I'll be taking over the review after consultation at WT:GAN. From an initial skim read, I can't see any huge issues but there are a few minor issues/suggestions.

My main concern is that the article appears to have something of an identity crisis. It's written more like an article on, for example, a band. I think it would be better to write it in a similar format to a biography of single person. Don;t worry, it won't require any major overhaul, but you might want to have a look at MOS:BIO. If we take the lead section, I'd start it off with something like:
 * Name (born Month DD, YYYY) and Name (born [maiden name] Month DD, YYYY), also known as "Nickname" are...

Introduce your reader to the subject- basic information and reason for notability. Other than that, your lead is pretty good, but I think your best option would be to tweak the entire article a little bit to make it a biography, which shouldn't take too much work. I'll keep this page and the article on my watchlist, but do feel free to poke me on my talk page if you need clarification or anything. HJ Mitchell |  Penny for your thoughts?   20:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Other than the specific example you gave about the first sentence, I honestly don't know how to respond to your suggestion. It seems like you want me to write the entire article over again and after reading it twice, I don't know how to do that. To be clear, I can't see what needs to be changed. It's written in present tense and none of the material is out of date. The first sentence already mentions who they are, what they do, and why they're significant (i.e. introducing the reader to the subject - basic information and notability). Their ethnic backgrounds are in the infobox which is more appropriate than in the lead because their ancestry isn't relevant to their career. This goes with MOS:BIO policy. I am fimiliar with the format you gave "Name (born Month DD, YYYY) and Name (born [maiden name] Month DD, YYYY), also known as "Nickname" are..." but I purposely put their birth information in the "early life" section rather than in the lead because I felt the first sentence would be too long if I did it that way. I changed it as you suggested b/c it's the only way I can think of to please you. The body of the article talks about their career in choreography, creative direction, dance teaching, and their clothing line. It starts out with where they grew up, how they got into dance, how they met, how they started their career and then on to what they've done. Is this not the way a biography is written? I'm really trying to look at this article from your POV and see the "identity crisis" but I just don't see it. Please be more specific. // Gbern3 (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries. Don't panic. Firstly for the nationality, we don't need any detail on that in the opening, just the word "American" would be sufficient as long as it's not misleading and then you can explain the detail in the early life section. Other than that, I think the changes you've made make the article much clearer. Having had another look, I can't find any significant issues with the content of the article. However, I wonder if there is any more information available on the people themselves. Most biographical articles have a "personal life" where you can include information on their families and other information that's not relevant to their career. I suggest you have a look through google news and some of the sources you've already got to see if you can build on that. Let me know if you need any help. HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   12:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I had a "Married Life" section before but I deleted it. This article has already gone through GA review process once and failed. Although I disagreed with 80% of Jezhotwells' qualms the one thing I did agree with was the fact that the "married life" section was probably "WP:fancruft" as he/she called it. So I deleted it. I could add it back but it would probably be challenged. Read it and see what you think. I called that section 'married life' rather than 'personal life' because it talked about their marriage relationship rather than how many kids they have (none) or famous people they're related to (none that I know of). // Gbern3 (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. Have a look at Lily Cole (a GA that I wrote) and see what you think of the "early and personal life" section. Is there a way that you could incorporate similar information into this article? HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   13:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ?? I already have. What you put in the "early and personal life" section in the Lily Cole article, I have already put the equivalent of that in the "early life" section here in this article: where they're from, what high school they went to, how they met, what college they went to, what they majored in, how they got into their career, etc. You mentioned net worth in the Lily Cole article. I really don't think Nappytabs is famous enough for anyone to estimate their net worth. If they were famous enough, I still wouldn't be able put this information in the article because there isn't a realiable source for it. May I ask what is actually wrong with the article? What is preventing it from obtaining GA status? // Gbern3 (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, my point, put simply, is that this article tells me plenty about their career and what they've done but if I had just stumbled across the article or I wanted to read about them out of interest, I'd want to know a little about them beyond where they grew up. For example, how did they meet- something more than "they met at university" if it can be found-? Who were their parents? Where does their passion for dancing come from? Do either of them take inspiration from somebody? Essentially, I'd like to know a little bit more about what they do other than dance and choreograph. I'd say that falls under criterion 3a. The best source, in my experience, for that kind of thing would be an interview they've given to a newspaper or a magazine. Is that kind of material available? HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   16:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ❌ I don't think it is. I honestly believe I've exhausted all reliable sources on them. I have 42 cited in this article and none of them are dead. This is something we're just going to have to respectfully disagree on. Criterion 3a states "[the article] addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail" Does it really matter who their parents are? Or where specifically on campus they met? And here it states "...a good article must be broad. The "comprehensive" standard requires that no major fact or detail is omitted; the "broad" standard merely requires coverage of the main points." As far as inspiration there's a quote from Napoleon in the article here about Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly. Also, last year I created a wikiquote page for Napoleon where I quoted him talking about dancing, his wife, the dance industry, shows he's worked on, etc. If people are really interested in what he has to say about all those topics, they can go to that page and read more about him/his thoughts. That material is more appropriate on his wikiquote page and there's a link to this page in the external links section. We need a second opinion. I would ask for it myself but I believe protocol deems that you as the reviewer should request it. // Gbern3 (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, to put it quite simply, if I came to this article to find out about Napoleon and Tabitha, I would leave knowing plenty about their successes in their field, but very little about the people themselves. I'm sure this kind of material exists and it needn't be placed in a section of its own if you prefer not to, but I believe it should be in there somewhere. I will informally consult another experienced GA reviewer for a second opinion (rather than leaving it on hold until somebody sees it) but be aware (not at all wishing to be disrespectful to you) that if you disagree with all your reviewers, you're going to run out of them before long. HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   15:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Do Napoleon and Tabitha have children? Are there any reliable sources available that say where the two reside? What do they do when not choreographing? I believe this is what HJ Mitchell is coming across from. Though, if nothing is available, then it's fine. All of that is based on the availability of reliable sources, so. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  19:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Second opinion from ThinkBlue; a couple of things that stood out while reading this article.
 * In the lead, this ---> "They were subsequently nominated for an 2009 Emmy Award for Outstanding Choreography for their work on season four" should be this ---> "They were subsequently nominated for a 2009 Emmy Award for Outstanding Choreography for their work on season four", it doesn't make sense to have "an" after 2009, but if it was "They were subsequently nominated for an Emmy Award in 2009 for Outstanding Choreography for their work on season four", then yeah "an" makes sense to be there.
 * "Viva ELVIS" should be italicized since it is a show.
 * In the Early life section, it would be best if "University of Nevada, Las Vegas" was followed by ---> (UNLV), I mean, I know what it means, cause I go there, but how 'bout your reader. Also, UNLV should be linked once.
 * In the Choreography section, you might want to add this ---> "SYTYCD" after "So You Think You Can Dance", I mean I know the acronym, how 'bout your readers.
 * Same section, "The Ellen DeGeneres Show" needs to be italicized, as it is a TV show. Also, "The routine featured both Ellen" ---> "The routine featured both DeGeneres", better to name the person by their last names.
 * In the Choreography section, you might want to add this ---> "SYTYCD" after "So You Think You Can Dance", I mean I know the acronym, how 'bout your readers.
 * Same section, "The Ellen DeGeneres Show" needs to be italicized, as it is a TV show. Also, "The routine featured both Ellen" ---> "The routine featured both DeGeneres", better to name the person by their last names.
 * Same section, "The Ellen DeGeneres Show" needs to be italicized, as it is a TV show. Also, "The routine featured both Ellen" ---> "The routine featured both DeGeneres", better to name the person by their last names.
 * Thank you for the 2nd opinion. Yes, I agree; reliable sources. I brought this up twice in my third and fourth response to the above discussion with HJ Mitchell. I don't have the sources to provide this information. To answer your questions specifically, there is already a citation provided for where they live (in the infobox) and No, they don't have children. But I know that from their twitter feed, not because I read it in a magazine/newspaper article. As you already know, twitter is not considered a reliable source WP:TWITTER. They do have a clothing line (dancewear) that they devote a lot of time to outside of choreographing. This is already mentioned in the "projects" section. Other non-choreography related information such as their hobbies, things like that... I don't know what they do in their spare time and I don't have a sources for that, so. // Gbern3 (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion
I'm sorry to have to do this, but I feel I have no choice but to fail this article. It is not broad enough in its coverage of Napoleon and Tabitha as people, not just as dancers/choreographers, to meet 3a as well as other efforts. To be perfectly frank, I cannot see any significant effort to address the concerns of the previous review before re-nominating nor to address my concerns. To exemplify this point, only three edits have been made to the article since I began this review and only one of them attempted to address these concerns.
 * Your requests were broad. I only made edits for two of the specific requests you made i.e. the first sentence and telling the reader that their Americans. The third request, creating a "personal life" section, I purposely didn't do because everything you mentioned that should be in the personal life section is already in the "early life" section. Since I don't have a source for other information you wanted like who their parents are, I can't provide that for you.

Before this is renominated, I would like to see a few things corrected:
 * Firstly, Gbern3, I think you need to be more willing to listen to the constructive criticism offered to you by reviewers
 * I honestly don't feel like I'm being unreasonable. You say it's not broad and you don't know enough about who they are as people but if you disregard the career section and go off the infobox and "early life" section alone you'll know... 
 * How is this not broad enough outside of their career? To provide more information of this nature, I need a reliable source. I don't know what else to tell you. 


 * I would like to see some more critical reception type material in the article as one might expect to find in an article about a band or an actor
 * Why are you just now bringing this up? Good suggestion. However, you already failed the article. You failed the article and brought up a suggestion that I change it... even though you already failed it. I really don't think that's right.
 * The article needs more information on Napoleon and Tabitha outside of their work. For example, information on their parents, children (if any), more (if it's available) on how they met.
 * Again, I need a reliable source.
 * The article is good on the who what where and when, but less so on the "how" and "why"- for example, why did he choose dancing over medical school?
 * Same response as above.
 * It should be looked at for its neutrality- it's almost entirely NPOV, but little things like "due to his talent" sneak in every now and again
 * Removed... "Due to his talent" that is.
 * Since they have an official website, I see little encyclopaedic benefit of linking to their Facebook/Youtube/MySpace profiles
 * Their MySpace, Facebook, and YouTube are their official websites. They use to have another one "napoleonandtabitha.com", but that no longer exist. This is one of things I disagreed with my first GA reviewer, Jezhotwells, on. These links are covered/protected by WP:ELOFFICIAL (the first paragraph), and WP:ELYES policy.
 * The "Choreography" section could probably do with being chopped up a little- it's something of a "wall of text"
 * <b style="color:#556B2F">Again, why are you just now bringing this up? I would ask how you suggest I change it but you already failed it.</b>
 * Any more free images of them would not go amiss
 * <b style="color:#556B2F">Already looked using this tool. Didn't find anymore.</b>
 * Some of the dancing terms should probably be explained a little for those unfamiliar with the subject matter (such as myself)
 * <b style="color:#556B2F">What dance term s do you mean? Lyrical hip-hop? It's already explained in the article. I took a direct quote from Dance Spirit magazine. I'm not a dancer myself so I don't know how I could explain it better. There's also a wikilink for lyrical hip-hop in both the lead and the infobox.</b>
 * You need to bear in mind that not every reader (again, including myself) lives in the US and so it should be written in a style that anybody with a good grasp of English would understand easily.
 * <b style="color:#556B2F">I don't understand how anyone who speaks English would have a hard time understanding this article. And again, you're just now bringing this up. I feel like you're asking me to rewrite the entire article so that it's written in Simple English Wikipedia style. I don't think it's fair that I have to do that in order to obtain GA status for this article. I had another article I wrote go through GA review and three others go through peer review. I've also read other peer/GA reviews and this has never come up.</b>

The above are mostly relatively minor points but the combination of them all leads me to believe that little would be gained by leaving the article on hold indefinitely. You're welcome to contest this decision at GA reassessment but I think the best thing to do is to attempt to address these issues and then renominate at WP:GAN. There's a backlog clearance drive going on next month so hopefully you won;t be waiting for another reviewer for too long. HJ Mitchell |  Penny for your thoughts?   20:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#556B2F">I don't think it's right that you are bringing up all these bullet points after failing the article. You didn't even give me the opportunity to respond to the second opinion before you decided it should fail. For this reason, I will list it at WP:GAR.</b> // Gbern3 (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd decided to fail it based on the breadth of coverage, however, these are other things that, while fixed fairly quickly (which is why I didn't bring them up at the start) would need fixing for GA. The article is well on its way to being a GA, but it's not their yet and based on my experience here and the previous review, I do not think it will be fixed in a timely fashion. You're welcome to request a GAR for community input, but I think a better option would be to spend a week on improving the article (which is what you;d rather be doing isn't it? It's more rewarding than GAR) and then renominate it at GAN. If you do the latter, I may be able to ask another reviewer to take it on quickly rather than you having to wait for a month. I'm happy to clarify anything and point you in the right direction to bring it up to standard or, indeed, help you request GAR if you want. HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   17:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#556B2F">I went back to Cateogies:GA-Class biography articles to see how prevalent a "personal life" section was in GA biographies. I clicked on Tjunkiya Napaltjarri which happens to be one that you reviewed. You commented that the article is "very nice work" which leads me to believe that you had no problem with easily understanding it. However, this tool says that it's actually written at a higher reading level than Napoleon and Tabitha D'umo is. So how can you say this article is hard to understand. If it's at a lower reading level there can't be a problem with anyone, including yourself, who speaks English and doesn't live in the US understanding it. After checking this I go on to read the Career  section and there's no "critical reception type material" in it. But you promoted it to GA status. Tjunkiya Napaltjarri is an artist. If you don't require that editor to add any material related to critical reception to obtain GA status, why would you ask me to do that for this article. That's not cool at all. It shows me that you don't actually believe in those new issues you brought up. I'm making a note of this in GAR and requesting a comment.</b> // Gbern3 (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I've reviewed quite a few articles, so the chances are, if you click through the category enough, you'll find one I reviewed sooner or later. Also, I should make it perfectly clear that this is not anything against you or against this article. The difference between the two is an Australian painter and and American dance couple. The latter are much more likely to attract attention and so I'm sure that material on critical reception exists and is widely available and someone coming to such an article would expect to see it. My biggest issue here, and the reason I failed it rather than leave it on hold for a little longer, is that nothing is changing. Since I took over, you've made 6 edits to the article, of which three were addressing concerns raised here and there was similar situation last time. I understand you were away when the review was conducted so you didn't have chance to fix the issues, but before you renominated it, you made very minimal attempts to address the concerns. I'm more than happy to discuss things with you and I'll have all the patience in the world, but if you don't want to fix the issues I've raised, I can't pass it and there are 400 other articles that need reviewing. If you'd just add some information on what they do outside of their professional lives and some material (if there is any) on how critics perceive them (from their TV work, I imagine there'd be something), then I could pass it. I'm happy to discuss this with you if you're willing to listen, but I'm not going to get into an argument. Good luck with the GAR. I hope you find it easier to work with the reviewers there since you won;t work with me. I'm never far away if you want to resume a polite discussion about the quality of the article, though. HJ Mitchell  |  April Fool!   15:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#556B2F">For the seventh time, literally, I need a reliable source. I don't know how else to say it.</b> // Gbern3 (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)